Jonathan Wilson: football is broken

[JohnnyKills]

Yes this is exactly the point. Spurs have done it, and should be congratulated for it, they've been run absolutely brilliantly. For the majority (maybe all?) clubs below the current top 6, shrewd management, promising managers, great youth system, and excellent scouting/use of limited transfer budget isn't going to be enough. And that's the problem -- it should be enough, it should be possible. But it isn't.

The obvious counter-example to Spurs is Southampton, who have also been well managed, also hired managers well for the most part (Koeman, Pochettino, maybe Hasenhuttl), have developed an almost peerless set of brilliant youth players (Bale, Walcott, Oxlade-Chamberlain, Shaw, Lallana, etc.), and have also bought extremely well (Mane, van Dijk, Schneiderlin, Lovren, etc.). And where has that got Southampton? All those players and some of those managers were poached by the top 6, and Southampton fought relegation this season.[/

Great post, apart from the bit where you lumped Chelsea's spending in with that of Newcastle and Leeds, saying money did nothing to improve their situation.You could not be more wrong about it not improving Chelsea! Chelsea were literally dying as a football club, so broke they were unable to little more than fight to stay at the Bridge, which they didn't even own. Not even havng a training pitch, nevermind a state of the art traiining centre. Imagine just how big a disadvantage that was for Premiership players. A stadium which was 3 sides slum nearly 100 years old. Neo Nazis destroying the reputation of the club and attendances down to levels which would have seen the club fold if something drastic was not done. Ken Bates and the board came up with a longterm plan to transform the team, stadium and every aspect of the club. They of course knew it meant taking the club into debt, but the long game was to get everything in place which would then make them ripe for a big takeover. Bates gave an interview right at the start of it all, saying "mark my words, Chelsea will overtake Arsenal in competing for the big trophies". Bates had a gob on him, but his actions ended up matching his words that time.

Fair points mate. Thanks for the inside take.

 

[nore1975]

You could argue that Chelsea under Abramovich took spending to a new level hitherto unseen back in 2003 when they spent over 100m in a single season on new players. But City have taken things to a ridiculous level. Would strongly advise people to read Der Spiegel investigation into Man City. It's frightening. City are essentially owned by the UAE government. The dominance of Bayern, Barcelona, PSG and Juventus in their respective leagues is not healthy. What Liverpool did this year is nothing short of miraculous taking the league title decision down to the last game. It must have been embarrassing for the FA to see their showpiece fixture descend into one sided massacre.

 

[RooneyLegend]

The issue these days is that transfer fees are way too low to an extent where a fair price for Neymar was seen as ridiculous. It also doesn't help that there's a huge tactical gap that started once Pep entered the game.

 

[Steerpike]

Because it would mean even more money for them.

You could argue that Chelsea under Abramovich took spending to a new level hitherto unseen back in 2003 when they spent over 100m in a single season on new players. But City have taken things to a ridiculous level. Would strongly advise people to read Der Spiegel investigation into Man City. It's frightening. City are essentially owned by the UAE government. The dominance of Bayern, Barcelona, PSG and Juventus in their respective leagues is not healthy. What Liverpool did this year is nothing short of miraculous taking the league title decision down to the last game. It must have been embarrassing for the FA to see their showpiece fixture descend into one sided massacre.

While this is hardly the best place to applaud the achievements of Liverpool, I absolutely agree with you. Liverpool, like ourselves, run their club as a sustainable business. There is a requirement to make sure that revenue covers spending.

City and PSG do not have such worries, are on record as opposing the whole concept of FFP, and blatantly try to circumvent any requirements to behave in a fiscally responsible manner. For a properly run club like Liverpool to have run a bunch of cheats like City so close is truly worthy of our admiration and support (yes, painful I know).

We have to hope that UEFA is made up of people who will forego the various bribes and ignore the ominous threats that will be heading their way, and will actually hold City and PSG to account and force them to abide by the rules. If not, I see no future for the sport until everyone loses interest and the money drains away (which may happen sooner than people think).

 

[nore1975]

While this is hardly the best place to applaud the achievements of Liverpool, I absolutely agree with you. Liverpool, like ourselves, run their club as a sustainable business. There is a requirement to make sure that revenue covers spending.

City and PSG do not have such worries, are on record as opposing the whole concept of FFP, and blatantly try to circumvent any requirements to behave in a fiscally responsible manner. For a properly run club like Liverpool to have run a bunch of cheats like City so close is truly worthy of our admiration and support (yes, painful I know).

We have to hope that UEFA is made up of people who will forego the various bribes and ignore the ominous threats that will be heading their way, and will actually hold City and PSG to account and force them to abide by the rules. If not, I see no future for the sport until everyone loses interest and the money drains away (which may happen sooner than people think).

Thank you for your kind reply. For context Klopp has a net spend of 150m since June 2016. Pep's is 339m in the same time period. Is their merit to away fans not going to the Etihad and home fans boycotting City games until such time as they are brought to account like Rangers were in Scotland.

 

[SambaBoy]

Personally I feel managers such as Hodgson and Howe sign poor players which make it difficult for their teams to close the gap.

Crystal Palace for example have been happy with Mediocre such as Townsend and McArthur in midfield for a few seasons now. If these clubs actually worked to implement playing philosophies and brought suitable players for a style of play, the league would be more competitive.

There is all this money in football but seemingly managers and coaches do not work hard enough selecting the right players to suit a way of playing.

Crystal Palace signed Max Meyer last summer, a highly rated German international who had attracted interest from top European clubs when he was breaking onto the scene. Bournemouth spent big money on Jefferson Lerma.

These clubs are trying to close the gap but it's hardly realistic. If they do have a successful season, they reach Europe which then derails any further progression in the league as they can't cope with the schedule. They then crash out of Europe, players leave and they finish mid-table and they are back to square one. Teams don't have enough money to invest in two quality squad to compete in Europe and the Premiership unless you are one of the big 6 and even history shows the teams still struggle in the league after a European game.

Leicester and Wolves probably have the best chance of closing the gaps given the quality of their players an their owners who are willing to invest. But can anyone realistically see them overtaking even Arsenal over the next 3-5 years as a club? As mentioned above, even if the club were to have a really good season and finished say 4th/5th, they wouldn't be able to do it consistently. I know Leicester didn't have the team to do it last time when they were in the CL but they really struggled the following season in the Prem as their team wasn't big enough.

 

[JohnnyKills]

While this is hardly the best place to applaud the achievements of Liverpool, I absolutely agree with you. Liverpool, like ourselves, run their club as a sustainable business. There is a requirement to make sure that revenue covers spending.

City and PSG do not have such worries, are on record as opposing the whole concept of FFP, and blatantly try to circumvent any requirements to behave in a fiscally responsible manner. For a properly run club like Liverpool to have run a bunch of cheats like City so close is truly worthy of our admiration and support (yes, painful I know).

We have to hope that UEFA is made up of people who will forego the various bribes and ignore the ominous threats that will be heading their way, and will actually hold City and PSG to account and force them to abide by the rules. If not, I see no future for the sport until everyone loses interest and the money drains away (which may happen sooner than people think).

Yep, totally agree. Fair play to those Scouse bastards.

As you say, if it becomes about who's got the richest owner, people will stop watching.

 

[JohnnyKills]

You could argue that Chelsea under Abramovich took spending to a new level hitherto unseen back in 2003 when they spent over 100m in a single season on new players. But City have taken things to a ridiculous level. Would strongly advise people to read Der Spiegel investigation into Man City. It's frightening. City are essentially owned by the UAE government. The dominance of Bayern, Barcelona, PSG and Juventus in their respective leagues is not healthy. What Liverpool did this year is nothing short of miraculous taking the league title decision down to the last game. It must have been embarrassing for the FA to see their showpiece fixture descend into one sided massacre.

Agree with this, and others have used it as an example of having more sugardaddies. But I'm not sure having more foreign owners is the answer in any of these leagues.

In Germany, Bayern have always been dominant and it seems the fans there accept it. They hate the idea of foreign money coming into the league and all the clubs are supporter-owned.

In France, the league is already massively distorted. Surely the answer is to clip PSG's wings rather than encourage other clubs to copy them?

In Spain, Barcelona and Real Madrid divvy up the TV rights between them. That's an obvious place to start if they want to make the league more competitive?

In Italy... no idea what the answer is, but the situation must be better now than when Milan were buying everyone in sight and blitzing the league.

 

[Ooh2B]

There’s not very many indicators that would prove otherwise that spending power is the biggest factor in success these days. Leicester being the outlier of course.

It’s absolutely an arms race with he who spends the most, wins the most.

Liverpool did indeed have a miraculous season, and fair fecks to them for keeping us all entertained, and I don’t want to undermine what they’ve done, but without the odd Coutinho and Saurez sales I can’t see even them maintaining any sort of sustained pursuit of the likes of City/PSG.

Maybe footballs not completely broken, but it needs an overhaul.

 

[Casanova85]

I don't get it. Oil clubs are the problem? Only two as far as I know: City and PSG.

Juve, Bayern and Barça are classic clubs which grow to juggernaut status decades ago. Obviously they are going to keep winning leagues.

Two non-oil clubs in the UCL final, as well.

But, oh wait, it's a Guardian article, ffs. Seems like a rant against the big clubs in support of small teams. Remember: big and successful ain't cool, kids, because the Guardian says so. Let the small potatoes clubs win something! What was City thinking? 6-0 was an insult!

Screw big clubs! Let them go to their Galatic Superleague, so the midtable teams become the new leading clubs. Pathetic journalist and article.

 

[JMack1234]

It'll only get worse when the current TV subscription model runs out of steam as well.

 

[Casanova85]

The Guardian won't admit it, but Football became a G7/G20 a long time ago.

It's absurd to pretend every city should have a leading football club with clear options of finishing 1st.

 

[Tincanalley]

You could argue that Chelsea under Abramovich took spending to a new level hitherto unseen back in 2003 when they spent over 100m in a single season on new players. But City have taken things to a ridiculous level. Would strongly advise people to read Der Spiegel investigation into Man City. It's frightening. City are essentially owned by the UAE government.

And this lot have had their finger in the Real Madrid pie, in the Bayern pie, think up to recently had some sponsorship involving Barca...

The dominance of Bayern, Barcelona, PSG and Juventus in their respective leagues is not healthy. What Liverpool did this year is nothing short of miraculous taking the league title decision down to the last game. It must have been embarrassing for the FA to see their showpiece fixture descend into a one sided massacre.

 

[Tyrion]

Super league is an inevitability at this point.

Agreed. I've thought this for a while and I've been a little annoyed at how some conservative journalists rubbish the idea whenever it's brought up. Italy, Germany and France are essentially one horse races. Spain is pretty competitive by comparison but there's a top two (almost) permanently. England seems to have a solid top 6 and one were only we can compete with City financially.

After about a decade, people may start to realise a super league is a good idea.

 

[andyox]

Agree with this, and others have used it as an example of having more sugardaddies. But I'm not sure having more foreign owners is the answer in any of these leagues.

In Germany, Bayern have always been dominant and it seems the fans there accept it. They hate the idea of foreign money coming into the league and all the clubs are supporter-owned.

In France, the league is already massively distorted. Surely the answer is to clip PSG's wings rather than encourage other clubs to copy them?

In Spain, Barcelona and Real Madrid divvy up the TV rights between them. That's an obvious place to start if they want to make the league more competitive?

In Italy... no idea what the answer is, but the situation must be better now than when Milan were buying everyone in sight and blitzing the league.

I totally agree with you on your point that the answer is not more sugar daddies, because sugar daddies make leagues even less competitive than they already are.

If the question is "how do we make domestic leagues more competitive?" then the answer is going to include a fundamental restructuring that either evens out revenues or more likely evens out the use of revenues (salary cap, transfer cap, luxury tax, etc.). FFP going after sugar daddies is fine, but it fails to answer the broader issues. United's revenue is about five times higher than the PL club with the lowest revenue. FFP doesn't help to narrow that gap, in fact it ensures that gap is firmly enforced because the lowest club can't use external funding (e.g. sugar daddy) to close the gap. Massive revenue gap ultimately means massive competitive gap.

(P.S. I used United in my example just because they have the highest PL revenue)

 

[JohnnyKills]

I totally agree with you on your point that the answer is not more sugar daddies, because sugar daddies make leagues even less competitive than they already are.

If the question is "how do we make domestic leagues more competitive?" then the answer is going to include a fundamental restructuring that either evens out revenues or more likely evens out the use of revenues (salary cap, transfer cap, luxury tax, etc.). FFP going after sugar daddies is fine, but it fails to answer the broader issues. United's revenue is about five times higher than the PL club with the lowest revenue. FFP doesn't help to narrow that gap, in fact it ensures that gap is firmly enforced because the lowest club can't use external funding (e.g. sugar daddy) to close the gap. Massive revenue gap ultimately means massive competitive gap.

(P.S. I used United in my example just because they have the highest PL revenue)

Yeah it's a very difficult one isn't it. Hopefully someone cleverer than me finds the answer.

Anyway mate, enjoy City's success. Went to Maine Road a few times in the mid 90s (my dad had tickets through work) and it was grim. Those fans kept coming back game after game to watch Nicky Sumerbee, Michel Vonk et al.

I hate what City have become but don't wish the fans any ill will whatsoever.

 

[Righteous Steps]

Bran is broken.

 

[Angry Virginian]

If the question is "how do we make domestic leagues more competitive?" then the answer is going to include a fundamental restructuring that either evens out revenues or more likely evens out the use of revenues (salary cap, transfer cap, luxury tax, etc.). FFP going after sugar daddies is fine, but it fails to answer the broader issues. United's revenue is about five times higher than the PL club with the lowest revenue. FFP doesn't help to narrow that gap, in fact it ensures that gap is firmly enforced because the lowest club can't use external funding (e.g. sugar daddy) to close the gap. Massive revenue gap ultimately means massive competitive gap.

(P.S. I used United in my example just because they have the highest PL revenue)

Salary cap won't work with EU competition law. Salary cap works in the US because the leagues (NFL, MLS, NBA, etc) are either exempted from antitrust law or are seen legally as a single entity (every player works for the league and not the team therefore the league can set the pay rules any way they want). Such structure won't work in Europe because the leagues and teams are spread all over the continent and are unlikely to unite to implement a single salary cap across all leagues. Think about it, which mega rich team would be happy with a salary cap?

FFP is a step in the right direction (better than nothing) but it has been toothless so far to actually enforce the rule.

 

[Cheesy]

The difference is our teams were beatable. We won almost every year but not in this manner. In fact, in most of the top leagues teams haven't historically been this dominant in how they've gone about their business of winning.

Aye, the year we won the treble we won with 79 points. And there were a number of our other top teams who similarly won the league without running away with it. Indeed despite having won more than double any of our rivals in the PL era, of the top five points totals in PL history, none come from United. With four of the top five coming in the last three seasons.

And even when we did win the league, the challengers often varied depending on the season: Villa, Blackburn, Newcastle, Leeds, Liverpool, Arsenal, Chelsea and City all posed strong challenges in Fergie's time even when they didn't win it.

 

[Cheesy]

I don't get it. Oil clubs are the problem? Only two as far as I know: City and PSG.

Juve, Bayern and Barça are classic clubs which grow to juggernaut status decades ago. Obviously they are going to keep winning leagues.

Two non-oil clubs in the UCL final, as well.

But, oh wait, it's a Guardian article, ffs. Seems like a rant against the big clubs in support of small teams. Remember: big and successful ain't cool, kids, because the Guardian says so. Let the small potatoes clubs win something! What was City thinking? 6-0 was an insult!

Screw big clubs! Let them go to their Galatic Superleague, so the midtable teams become the new leading clubs. Pathetic journalist and article.

There's a clear shift now insofar as wherein they were generally the most dominant clubs before who tended to win their leagues more often than not, they now literally just won it every season in the case of Bayern and Juventus. And it's immensely boring. If you're in a 20-team league and you basically know who's won it before you've played one of your 38 games, what's the point? Why are we even bothering?

 

[andyox]

Salary cap won't work with EU competition law. Salary cap works in the US because the leagues (NFL, MLS, NBA, etc) are either exempted from antitrust law or are seen legally as a single entity (every player works for the league and not the team therefore the league can set the pay rules any way they want). Such structure won't work in Europe because the leagues and teams are spread all over the continent and are unlikely to unite to implement a single salary cap across all leagues. Think about it, which mega rich team would be happy with a salary cap?

FFP is a step in the right direction (better than nothing) but it has been toothless so far to actually enforce the rule.

Exactly, that's the problem. Turkeys don't vote for Christmas. Every major change to the balance of the game over the last 30 years has been a move towards greater inequality. We've had the end of shared ticket revenue in the 1980s, the formation of the Premier League and the redesign of the European Cup/Champions League in the 1990s, and even more recently last year the change in the allocation of international broadcast revenue. I would include FFP in that statement too, I know it will be more controversial, but there's a very good reason why the elite clubs are very supportive of it and had a key role in creating it (again, turkeys don't vote for Christmas).

Yes, the US sports market is fundamentally different to the global football market. Yes a salary cap will be challenging to implement across all leagues, but I think your point on salary cap and EU competition law is a red herring -- plenty of sports in the UK enforce a salary cap, including cricket, rugby union, rugby league, and there is even one in football too (the Women's Super League).

In fact, we've had a perfect example this week of the challenges of implementing a salary cap. City Women's striker Nikita Parris has just moved to Lyon and reports say she has quintupled her salary, primarily because City are bound by the English salary cap, but Lyon are not! We had the same last year when Lucy Bronze moved to Lyon too (Lyon's average annual salary last year was €162,000, compared to the average annual salary of €30,537 in the WSL).

 

[andyox]

Yeah it's a very difficult one isn't it. Hopefully someone cleverer than me finds the answer.

Anyway mate, enjoy City's success. Went to Maine Road a few times in the mid 90s (my dad had tickets through work) and it was grim. Those fans kept coming back game after game to watch Nicky Sumerbee, Michel Vonk et al.

I hate what City have become but don't wish the fans any ill will whatsoever.

Haha, I wish I knew the answer too! Yep my first game at Maine Road was 1990, so my early memories and nostalgia are all focused in the early-1990s. I miss it!

 

[africanspur]

It is undoubtedly broken and getting worse but I think people are rather missing the point if I'm honest with blaming just City, Chelsea and PSG.

What they're doing and have done is, yes despicable. I think the likes of Tottenham suffer particularly from it, which has been very sad.

Yet, I see them as more of a symptom than the root cause of the problem. Yes, football has always been about money, yes there have always been periods of dominance but you feel that changed more often in the past than it does now, or even 10-15 years ago.

The European 'nobility' is desperate to keep the money and prestige where it currently is and have changed money distribution in the CL, as well as potentially the whole format of the competition itself, to maintain those things amongst the 'old clubs'.

It's all a massive shame imo. The stockpiling of players at the top sucks a lot of fun out of things.

 

[Treble]

It is undoubtedly broken and getting worse but I think people are rather missing the point if I'm honest with blaming just City, Chelsea and PSG.

What they're doing and have done is, yes despicable. I think the likes of Tottenham suffer particularly from it, which has been very sad.

Yet, I see them as more of a symptom than the root cause of the problem. Yes, football has always been about money, yes there have always been periods of dominance but you feel that changed more often in the past than it does now, or even 10-15 years ago.

The European 'nobility' is desperate to keep the money and prestige where it currently is and have changed money distribution in the CL, as well as potentially the whole format of the competition itself, to maintain those things amongst the 'old clubs'.

It's all a massive shame imo. The stockpiling of players at the top sucks a lot of fun out of things.

It's more complex than that. Having many, not just 4-5, super clubs would make for a more interesting CL. I'd rather watch Messi's Barca vs Ronaldo's Mardid than Dortmund vs Roma. If football is broken because the likes of Leicester can't win the CL, I'm fine with that. Why should they?

You can have competitiveness in two different ways: (1) if there is no big difference in quality between top and midtable teams across Europe so that many teams can win the domestic leagues and the CL or (2) if you have 15-20 top clubs which are being stacked with star players and fight each other.

It's not obvious that (1) would provide more entetainment than (2). The problem is not that there are several very rich clubs but that there are not enough of them. Imagine if there was a top 6 in the Bundesliga or the Ligue 1 or Serie A. Those leagues would be of much higher quality.

So, you can have more competitiveness either by levelling the playing field or by having more big/rich clubs. The first would require revolutionary measures going against the biggest clubs, it won't happen. The second can happen with fresh money coming from other parts of the world: China, Arab countries, American investors, etc. Of course, the already established clubs loath competiiton, they would like to maintain their position forever., the likes of Bayern, Juventus, Real...

 

[Jeffthered]

Yes this is exactly the point. Spurs have done it, and should be congratulated for it, they've been run absolutely brilliantly. For the majority (maybe all?) clubs below the current top 6, shrewd management, promising managers, great youth system, and excellent scouting/use of limited transfer budget isn't going to be enough. And that's the problem -- it should be enough, it should be possible. But it isn't.

The obvious counter-example to Spurs is Southampton, who have also been well managed, also hired managers well for the most part (Koeman, Pochettino, maybe Hasenhuttl), have developed an almost peerless set of brilliant youth players (Bale, Walcott, Oxlade-Chamberlain, Shaw, Lallana, etc.), and have also bought extremely well (Mane, van Dijk, Schneiderlin, Lovren, etc.). And where has that got Southampton? All those players and some of those managers were poached by the top 6, and Southampton fought relegation this season.

So are Southampton FC a 'failing' club, or a successful club?

I would argue that they are the latter.

Watford, Burnley, Bournemouth... Leicester for example... these are 'failing' clubs? How?

Clubs 'peak and trough' accordingly, it's how things go, and many historical factors inform the size , development and impact of a club.

I just cannot agree that a club's success is simply in relation to trophies.

 

[africanspur]

It's more complex than that. Having many, not just 4-5, super clubs would make for a more interesting CL. I'd rather watch Messi's Barca vs Ronaldo's Mardid than Dortmund vs Roma. If football is broken because the likes of Leicester can't win the CL, I'm fine with that. Why should they?

You can have competitiveness in two different ways: (1) if there is no big difference in quality between top and midtable teams across Europe so that many teams can win the domestic leagues and the CL or (2) if you have 15-20 top clubs which are being stacked with star players and fight each other.

It's not obvious that (1) would provide more entetainment than (2). The problem is not that there are several very rich clubs but that there are not enough of them. Imagine if there was a top 6 in the Bundesliga or the Ligue 1 or Serie A. Those leagues would be of much higher quality.

So, you can have more competitiveness either by levelling the playing field or by having more big/rich clubs. The first would require revolutionary measures going against the biggest clubs, it won't happen. The second can happen with fresh money coming from other parts of the world: China, Arab countries, American investors, etc. Of course, the already established clubs loath competiiton, they would like to maintain their position forever., the likes of Bayern, Juventus, Real...

Why should they what? Nobody is saying Leicester should just be handed the CL are they? What exactly would be less exciting about Roma vs Dortmund if they had the same quality of player? If football were such that the likes of Roma could build a team like Messi's Barcelona or Ronaldo's Real?

The football 'nobility' are such becuase of a few factors. Almost all of them have a history of, at some point, being bankrolled by a rich benefactor. Other factors include luck, good management, timing, the ability to create a narrative around the club etc.

Is Berlusconi's patronage so much better than Abrahmovich? How ahout Davies and Gibson? You go back in most clubs histories and you'll find St least one instance where someone pumped in money. Even now on a smaller scale it's happening. Pompey, Wolves, Fulham, Leicester.

I really find the way people talk and think about this stuff so strange and not at all consistent with their likely real life views. They think of a football nobility, that should essentially be untouched (not saying you necessarily). They turn their nose up at any relative newcomer, whether in through new money (Chelsea/City etc) or good organisation (Spurs). If these views were extrapolated to real life, people would rightly be accused of elitism.

I do agree that the first thing won't happen and why ultimately, whether it's 5 years or 50 years, a super league is inevitable. These clubs genuinely can't imagine themselves anywhere but near the top, regardless of whether they deserve it or not.

 

[Casanova85]

There's a clear shift now insofar as wherein they were generally the most dominant clubs before who tended to win their leagues more often than not, they now literally just won it every season in the case of Bayern and Juventus. And it's immensely boring. If you're in a 20-team league and you basically know who's won it before you've played one of your 38 games, what's the point? Why are we even bothering?

To dethrone the Emperor, and/or who finished in the Top6 places, who gets relegated, etc.

 

[Treble]

Why should they what? Nobody is saying Leicester should just be handed the CL are they? What exactly would be less exciting about Roma vs Dortmund if they had the same quality of player? If football were such that the likes of Roma could build a team like Messi's Barcelona or Ronaldo's Real?

The football 'nobility' are such becuase of a few factors. Almost all of them have a history of, at some point, being bankrolled by a rich benefactor. Other factors include luck, good management, timing, the ability to create a narrative around the club etc.

Is Berlusconi's patronage so much better than Abrahmovich? How ahout Davies and Gibson? You go back in most clubs histories and you'll find St least one instance where someone pumped in money. Even now on a smaller scale it's happening. Pompey, Wolves, Fulham, Leicester.

I really find the way people talk and think about this stuff so strange and not at all consistent with their likely real life views. They think of a football nobility, that should essentially be untouched (not saying you necessarily). They turn their nose up at any relative newcomer, whether in through new money (Chelsea/City etc) or good organisation (Spurs). If these views were extrapolated to real life, people would rightly be accused of elitism.

I do agree that the first thing won't happen and why ultimately, whether it's 5 years or 50 years, a super league is inevitable. These clubs genuinely can't imagine themselves anywhere but near the top, regardless of whether they deserve it or not.

What Spurs are doing is admirable. But if you want to be up there consistently, after Pochettino, Lloris, Aldy, Vertonghen, Eriksen are gone, you'll need additional investments - not necessarily to sell the club but to attract fresh money.

I agree with the other points.

 

[ThierryFabregas]

In the early 90s you had 2 promoted teams in Leeds and Blackburn who won the title. Nottingham Forrest weren't a giant but won 2 European Cups. Aberdeen won the Cup Winners Cup. The European Cup would be won by a club from any of the top 16 leagues. Now you can be pretty certain it will be won from 1 of the big 2 leagues. Maybe 1 of the big 5. It's nigh on impossible a team out of the top 5 can win it. Ajax this year nearly made it to the final being the exception ofcourse.

Small teams could compete back in those days. Today it's not possible. Leicester is the obvious outliar. But 30 years ago, what Leicester did wasn't particularly unusual. Today it's 100 to 1 odds.

Is it really sport anymore?

 

[MagicKarpet]

What Spurs are doing is admirable. But if you want to be up there consistently, after Pochettino, Lloris, Aldy, Vertonghen, Eriksen are gone, you'll need additional investments - not necessarily to sell the club but to attract fresh money.

I agree with the other points.

That's probably the reason Spurs have built a bigger stadium, to continue to be self sustainable and increase cash flow which puts them on par with their rivals.

 

[RE1999]

Salary cap won't work with EU competition law

Works in rugby. England has it. France doesn't. Some players go to France for a pay day but then can't play internationally for England so many top top players don't. Wales has central contracts and the same restriction on players playing in foreign leagues turning out for the national team.

The outcome is the English league is super competitive (wasn't settled until the last day, biggest team in the league nearly went down). The playoffs make it even more competitive - any team in the top 4 can lift the league trophy.

 

[Casanova85]

In the early 90s you had 2 promoted teams in Leeds and Blackburn who won the title. Nottingham Forrest weren't a giant but won 2 European Cups. Aberdeen won the Cup Winners Cup. The European Cup would be won by a club from any of the top 16 leagues. Now you can be pretty certain it will be won from 1 of the big 2 leagues. Maybe 1 of the big 5. It's nigh on impossible a team out of the top 5 can win it. Ajax this year nearly made it to the final being the exception ofcourse.

Small teams could compete back in those days. Today it's not possible. Leicester is the obvious outliar. But 30 years ago, what Leicester did wasn't particularly unusual. Today it's 100 to 1 odds.

Is it really sport anymore?

By your logic, Man Utd ruined the PL.

 

[JohnnyKills]

It's more complex than that. Having many, not just 4-5, super clubs would make for a more interesting CL. I'd rather watch Messi's Barca vs Ronaldo's Mardid than Dortmund vs Roma. If football is broken because the likes of Leicester can't win the CL, I'm fine with that. Why should they?

You can have competitiveness in two different ways: (1) if there is no big difference in quality between top and midtable teams across Europe so that many teams can win the domestic leagues and the CL or (2) if you have 15-20 top clubs which are being stacked with star players and fight each other.

It's not obvious that (1) would provide more entetainment than (2). The problem is not that there are several very rich clubs but that there are not enough of them. Imagine if there was a top 6 in the Bundesliga or the Ligue 1 or Serie A. Those leagues would be of much higher quality.

So, you can have more competitiveness either by levelling the playing field or by having more big/rich clubs. The first would require revolutionary measures going against the biggest clubs, it won't happen. The second can happen with fresh money coming from other parts of the world: China, Arab countries, American investors, etc. Of course, the already established clubs loath competiiton, they would like to maintain their position forever., the likes of Bayern, Juventus, Real...

Ajax and Liverpool beat Barca and Madrid this year. Have they made it less interesting by eliminating all those star players?

Also, you mention American investors... United and Arsenal have both been hugely damaged by U.S. involvement. Do you want more of that?

 

[ThierryFabregas]

By your logic, Man Utd ruined the PL.

No PL and CL money ruined the league and general competition in the sport

I mean you can point to Liverpool dominating the 70s and 80s in the same way as United in the 90s/00s. But even then you could have teams come and win the First Division without tons of spending, so Notts Forrest, Villa, Arsenal and I'd guess to a lesser extent Everton.

Spending after the PL escalated and killed smaller leagues. So in the 90s Rangers could put out Leeds out the European Cup, Arsenal got put out by Benfica, United by a crappy team on their first go and Liverpool only just scraped by against Celtic. Now huge historic clubs like Celtic, Rangers, Benfica and Ajax can't compete financially with teams from the big leagues, so most would expect Celtic to be relegated from the PL and maybe struggle to compete in the Championship. That is tragic.

The Champions League has conspired to create a huge money pot that only benefits the big clubs. So the wealth disparity between the richest clubs in La Liga and the average/smallest means there is no sporting chance for those clubs. Where as up until the 90s Barcelona hadn't won the league in 16 years and Real Madrid while being domestically dominant went 30 years without winning the CL. Less than 20 years ago Valencia and Deportivo were 2 of the best sides in Europe, now they can't compete.

So yes I think the game has changed for the worse and taken away the sporting competition.

 

[JohnnyKills]

So are Southampton FC a 'failing' club, or a successful club?

I would argue that they are the latter.

Watford, Burnley, Bournemouth... Leicester for example... these are 'failing' clubs? How?

Clubs 'peak and trough' accordingly, it's how things go, and many historical factors inform the size , development and impact of a club.

I just cannot agree that a club's success is simply in relation to trophies.

Completely agree. Ask any Southampton fan how they think the club's being run and they'll likely be overwhelmingly positive. As will all the other clubs you mention. Fans of most clubs probably don't consider the possibility their club will one day win the league. They follow their team for other reasons (not least that it's a lot cheaper than watching United and the other big clubs).

Football will always have a hierarchy, no matter which way you spin it. All that clubs like City are doing is replacing an old hierarchy with a new one, which is even less competitive (as demonstrated by the fact that they smashed the PL points record last year and nearly matched it this time).

The problem is, any constraints you put in place would simply restore the old hierarchy: they wouldn't create this utopian equality we all want. A salary cap sounds great in theory but, with no financial aspect for players to consider, players would simply sign for the most glamorous clubs. So Real, Barca, Milan, Juve, United and Liverpool would dominate again.

The only option that might work is a global limit on the number of 'paid-for' players you can include in your team. If you insisted on a minimum number of locally produced players, it would be easy to enforce (much easier than wages or spending cap) and success would come down to which were the best-run clubs, meaning that even clubs like Southampton might actually compete for major trophies.

 

[JohnnyKills]

No PL and CL money ruined the league and general competition in the sport

I mean you can point to Liverpool dominating the 70s and 80s in the same way as United in the 90s/00s. But even then you could have teams come and win the First Division without tons of spending, so Notts Forrest, Villa, Arsenal and I'd guess to a lesser extent Everton.

Spending after the PL escalated and killed smaller leagues. So in the 90s Rangers could put out Leeds out the European Cup, Arsenal got put out by Benfica, United by a crappy team on their first go and Liverpool only just scraped by against Celtic. Now huge historic clubs like Celtic, Rangers, Benfica and Ajax can't compete financially with teams from the big leagues, so most would expect Celtic to be relegated from the PL and maybe struggle to compete in the Championship. That is tragic.

The Champions League has conspired to create a huge money pot that only benefits the big clubs. So the wealth disparity between the richest clubs in La Liga and the average/smallest means there is no sporting chance for those clubs. Where as up until the 90s Barcelona hadn't won the league in 16 years and Real Madrid while being domestically dominant went 30 years without winning the CL. Less than 20 years ago Valencia and Deportivo were 2 of the best sides in Europe, now they can't compete.

So yes I think the game has changed for the worse and taken away the sporting competition.

Not sure why you're bringing up Ajax given they were literally one kick from reaching the Champions League final. Yes they'll probably get broken up this summer but they've always sold their star players - Cruyff, Van Basten and Bergkamp were taken by foreign clubs long before the CL gap opened up.

Porto have replaced Benfica as the strongest Portuguese side and they routinely make the CL knockout stages, which has pretty much been their level throughout history (their European Cup wins are very much the outlier). They're not in great shape now, but who's to say what's round the corner given all the talents emerging from Portuguese football?

Rangers beat Leeds back in 1992 with a team that was hugely expensive (Rangers' spending eventually resulted in bankruptcy, another argument against wealthy foreign owners who might suddenly disappear). Yes Rangers and Celtic have fallen off a cliff but, let's be honest, their league is crap and they've never made any effort to make it more competitive. In the era of satellite TV, it's inevitable people will watch other leagues than theirs.4

The problems suffered by Valencia and Deportivo have nothing to do with the CL. They're to do with Real and Barca taking all the TV money, which would seem to be an easily fixable problem.

Not saying you're wrong necessarily, but don't think any of those examples stands up.

 

[Casanova85]

No PL and CL money ruined the league and general competition in the sport

I mean you can point to Liverpool dominating the 70s and 80s in the same way as United in the 90s/00s. But even then you could have teams come and win the First Division without tons of spending, so Notts Forrest, Villa, Arsenal and I'd guess to a lesser extent Everton.

Spending after the PL escalated and killed smaller leagues. So in the 90s Rangers could put out Leeds out the European Cup, Arsenal got put out by Benfica, United by a crappy team on their first go and Liverpool only just scraped by against Celtic. Now huge historic clubs like Celtic, Rangers, Benfica and Ajax can't compete financially with teams from the big leagues, so most would expect Celtic to be relegated from the PL and maybe struggle to compete in the Championship. That is tragic.

The Champions League has conspired to create a huge money pot that only benefits the big clubs. So the wealth disparity between the richest clubs in La Liga and the average/smallest means there is no sporting chance for those clubs. Where as up until the 90s Barcelona hadn't won the league in 16 years and Real Madrid while being domestically dominant went 30 years without winning the CL. Less than 20 years ago Valencia and Deportivo were 2 of the best sides in Europe, now they can't compete.

So yes I think the game has changed for the worse and taken away the sporting competition.

The only way the smaller clubs (as you mention them) can survive is by being in the same competitions as the Huge Elite Clubs. Local-midtable-relegation clubs barely have any fans left (their local population). People worldwide are supporting the elite clubs and pay money to watch them on Tv. Nobody would pay to watch a match of Ipswich Town (with all due respect) unless they play in the Premier against the Top6 clubs. Nobody would pay to watch a game of Brugge (with all due respect) unless it's a UCL Group Stage game.

In my opinion, the Superleague would be the nail in the coffin for midtable-small clubs.

Currently, Germany, France and Italy have a problem with the size of Bayern, PSG and Juve, but sooner or later they'll deal with the problem, or maybe not (Dortmund could have won this liga anyway, but blew it). Anyway, not England's concern.

The PL is currently living a Top6 Golden Age with also very strong Top7-12 clubs, and my only regret is that Man Utd is currently the weakest of the Top6.

The Guardian is a hysterical propaganda comic, amusing at best. I wonder if Jonathan Wilson was upset because Watford was thrashed by City, the "corrupt" oil money semi-foreign club. So, is City the problem? Or the rich clubs in general?

 

[njred]

Salary cap won't work with EU competition law. Salary cap works in the US because the leagues (NFL, MLS, NBA, etc) are either exempted from antitrust law or are seen legally as a single entity (every player works for the league and not the team therefore the league can set the pay rules any way they want). Such structure won't work in Europe because the leagues and teams are spread all over the continent and are unlikely to unite to implement a single salary cap across all leagues. Think about it, which mega rich team would be happy with a salary cap?

How about at least a cap on the amount of transfer money spent in a window. Even lowering it just a bit would help. Salaries are a different beast but transfer money could be capped you would think.

 

[Keeps It tidy]

How about at least a cap on the amount of transfer money spent in a window. Even lowering it just a bit would help. Salaries are a different beast but transfer money could be capped you would think.

Collecting huge transfer fees is how some smaller sides are able to balance the books. A sell on clause in Lindelof's transfer to Manchester United saved the club Lindelof started at.

 

[andyox]

So are Southampton FC a 'failing' club, or a successful club?

I would argue that they are the latter.

Watford, Burnley, Bournemouth... Leicester for example... these are 'failing' clubs? How?

Clubs 'peak and trough' accordingly, it's how things go, and many historical factors inform the size , development and impact of a club.

I just cannot agree that a club's success is simply in relation to trophies.

No Southampton are not a failing club, and yes there's a lot more to success than just trophies. My post was in no way a slight on Southampton.

My point was that Southampton have been run excellently over a sustained period of time. They have been managed well, developed great players, and made shrewd signings. That should be the foundation of something that is better than having those managers and players bought off them by the big boys and finishing in 16th place this season.

We have long been past the point where the financial power of the elite is too great for the non-elite to overcome through sustained excellence.